PC gamers....why must we always get shafted?

[Canadamus Prime]

Because console games are cheaper to produce and thus much more profitable and we live in a market driven society.

Where do you base that console games are cheaper to produce than pc games ? I assume you have evidence ?

If "making pc games" is much more expensive than making games for consoles,then explain me why most independent developers who have limited budgets only make their games for PCs ?

You are wrong. Development IS actually taking place on PCs,and all games,even console exclusives are BUILD on pcs.The console development kits are versions of consoles that developers use in the final stage of developing,optimization. But before a game can run on a development kit,it has to run on a computer,and as such by the time you have a game playable on a console,it means it can also be played on a computer. Have you ever used a Game Engine in your life,like the Unreal Engine or the Cryengine,or do you speak out of your imagination ?

The only extra work a game made for consoles would take for it to play decent on a PC,is to design a PC-specific UI,something which can be done much faster and easier than other things like e.g. programming gameplay mechanics,and appropriate keyboard+mouse support.

Most PC gamers while they would welcome improvements like better textures or something,will be fine with a port if just it's GUI and controls aren't broken.
The complaint is that these two things can be done very easily,yet some developers skip them.

You attack me as if I'm some anti-PC gaming console gamer and in that you are mistaken. I do no believe in platform exclusivity. I will game on anything as long as the games are entertaining. In fact the vast majority of the games I have been playing lately have been on PC, so chill.
As for evidence, well ok I don't have any concrete evidence; my statement was based on the fact the hardware (and often software too) is never consistent among PCs and therefor that would make Q&A a much more extraneous and time consuming process and we all know that time = money. Whereas consoles all have constant hardware and software making Q&A much simpler and less time consuming thus saving money.
Of course that's all based on logical deduction and nothing really solid so take it for what it's worth.

 

[Aesir23]

I just want to know why PC games released later. It's like...X360/PS3 release: September 6th. PC release: September 18th.

Well, the setup from system to system on a console is fairly standard. The setup on a PC can vary quite a bit between each individual machine and they need to take that into account.

 

[Athinira]

"Might be the exception"? Half-Life 2 asks for a recommended RAM of 512MB. While Metro asks for 8GB of RAM for a smooth performance (as stated by the developers). How is that a "possible" exception to your statement that the RAM requirements aren't that different?

Well guess what: The reason I said Half-Life might be the exception was to emphasize that the REST of the games in the Toms Hardware Test would be more relevant to look at than Half-Life when comparing RAM-usage.

So why on earth you are focusing on Half-Life 2 in your reply again, leaving everything else relevant out?

Please respond to the points I made. This cat and mouse game of semantics isn't really productive.

 

[sammysoso]

The industry isn't malevolent, there is no agenda against PC gaming.

There's just not as much money as there is in the console market. They're a business, they go were the money is.

Also, piracy, while overblown by the publishers, IS a problem. One they'd rather not deal with.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I don't think so.

I do.

Especially now that:

1) You've now changed the context of my original argument based on a false conclusion
2) Some of the games you listed don't even fit the criteria for your new argument

 

[Risingblade]

PC gamers are harder to please so companies say fuck it and stick to consoles?

 

[eternal-chaplain]

Yeah it is pretty much what anyone else will tell you- the usual bit about piracy and development cost.

Though in all honesty, I think it may change soon. Consoles seem to trying to push the envelope more and more with rather complex technologies, like those employed by the WiiU. And then of course there are the corporations that seem to be in a bit of a downward spiral in terms of development ease. I mean, the Silent Hill HD remakes still don't have an Xbox patch because of how expensive it is to even develop and administer that sort of thing due to Microsoft's obscene policies.

So you know, maybe when developers realise that consoles are kind on a decline, we'll get back to PC Gaming. Until then. Well, at least the Indie Designers like us. Yay.

 

[Vigormortis]

Meanwhile, in PC land.

[spoiler/]

[/S][/spoiler]

gaaaahhh....[i/]that game[/i]

it sits there mocking me....I cannot play it because of my internet cap

Well, technically, you don't need to be online to play it. You can easily play over a LAN or against bots.

Sure, it's not the same as playing against people, but it's still fun.

 

[Vigormortis]

Metro asks for four times the amount of RAM the rest of those games do for "optimal performance."

Well, to be fair, Metro asks for 8gigs of RAM for "optimal performance" because the engine is terribly inefficient. The dev spent very little time optimizing anything.

 

[kortin]

I don't see why you have to consider yourself a "PC gamer". I primarily game on my pc, but I'm not above buying a game for my console to play it on. I think any gamer worth anything should own both a console and a PC. Why? Because, if we're talking about "superior ways to game", the superior way to game is to game on both a PC and a console; get the best of both worlds.

I game on the console/pc.

PConsole Gamer Master Race

 

[Racecarlock]

this is more of a rant than anything else I supose

but I have to ask [b/]why does the games industry hate the PC?[/b]

I mean bad ports...you know I can deal with that

DRM....is probably the biggest problem but its one of those things you grit and bear

not geting certain games....I'm still wating for Red Dead Rockstar...yes its 2 years old and Ive already played it on console...but I'm still waiting...[small/]dammit[/small]

and retail PC games are just downright depressing...granted thats hardly an issue for many with the rise of the digital platform...but for a fair number I'm sure downloading games at 15gb a pop just isn't viable

the fact is when "we" are not being called pirates we are having to hear about how "PC gaming is dying" or some such crap, and I'm sick of it

the fact is I know platforms have their advantages and disadvantages...you'd look pretty silly acting like its the biggest travesty/injustice in the world that you can't play Mass Effect on your Wii...because....[i/]well theres your problem[/i]

but do you get the feeling we are being pretty punished for our platform of choice? is it unreasonable of me to want to feel like I'm not being treated like a criminal if I want to play games? is it unreasonable of me to expect games to be released on my systm?


I mean to me this isn't choosing some systm with problems out of blind brand loyalty (as in why can't I play Mass effect on my Wii?)

the differences between console and PC are vast in many ways...some might say "get a console" but I don't want a fucking console....[b/]consoles break games[/b]..hold on, hear me out

I have a PS3, I love my PS3, right now its my primary platform since mr TOSHIBA has retired, and I have played some great games on it

but lets be honest. playing on a console (for the most part) shits me greatly, I can't stand not being able to see the screen and text clearly (hence why I play on an upright chair close to the TV since I'm lucky enugh to have one in my room) and the controlls...oh god

90% of games thease days while good are still frustrating as fuck....because 90% contain shooting, and I love shooting but usuing a gamepad is somthing I will never really enjoy doing

the experience is so much better when I've got a moniter and the precision/ease of a mouse, thats the difference between a frustrating experience and an engaging one..hell I played ME3 first time around on my PS3 and I remember being beaten to a pulp by banshees

played on PC second time (same diffuculty) and those Banshee's were MY bitches...did not die once on the same encounter than beat me so many times before..which goes to show how I was just being hampered by artificial difficulty

my point there is NOT to say which platforms are better (seriously take that argument somhwere else) my point is my choice of systm is vital to my experience and "getting a console" is no fix for issues I feel are unfair

*sigh*

ok...thourghts?

Well, just one. Know that I am on your side, despite being a console gamer. Know that none of us asked companies to do this. None of us asked for PC gamers to get shafted with horrible ports and asinine DRM, and it's bullshit that you got saddled with that.

The only way PC gamers can turn me away from joining their fight is when they directly insult me over my choice to play on consoles. I personally prefer aiming in first person shooters with a joystick, and that's my choice to make. I also hate it when I get blamed for destroying the industry. Not only are there way more indie games available for the PC and freeware games too, but there are also flash games, many of which are very difficult. Hell, there are still hard games out there being made. They're just not the only ones being made anymore, and there are more easy games being made now, but that doesn't mean hard games aren't being made.

Granted, most of that wasn't directed at you, but rather small parts of your piers. I also get that there are bullshit fanboys on consoles as well, but that doesn't really excuse anything. I mean, there's rapists in the world, but that doesn't mean rape is okay. Fanboyism sucks on every side.

But, yeah, you guys should get much more ports and much better ports. Ports that work. Developers should keep their promises to you. It doesn't just happen on PC either, I mean look at SR3 with %90 of it's content ripped out to sell back as DLC.

 

[Vault101]

Well, technically, you don't need to be online to play it. You can easily play over a LAN or against bots.

Sure, it's not the same as playing against people, but it's still fun.

true, but I actually can't play it. Due to all the updates it has received since launch there like a 10gb + download attatched....

I've never played it..I wonder if I started now I'd be acused of being a "F2P" even though I got it with the orange box

 

[Vigormortis]

Well, technically, you don't need to be online to play it. You can easily play over a LAN or against bots.

Sure, it's not the same as playing against people, but it's still fun.

true, but I actually can't play it. Due to all the updates it has received since launch there like a 10gb + download attatched....

I've never played it..I wonder if I started now I'd be acused of being a "F2P" even though I got it with the orange box

Oh, I'm sure some asshole would be mean towards you, based on that sort of assumption.

However, a vast majority would either be apathetic towards you or invitingly nice. More the former than latter, though.

.......................

Hmm, here's an idea. You could try downloading the game at another location. Preferrably one without a download cap. Then, just store the files on a disc, thumb drive, or external hard-drive, and transfer the files over to your computer. They will still work with your Steam client ( assuming it's updated ) and you can then play TF2 to your hearts content.

 

[Alatar The Red]

That's a lie. There's no way on your life you have anti-aliasing running to any large degree with artifacts you can see from a mile away.

If I fraps it will you call me a liar again or will you apologise? More likely you'll just ignore it and not reply as evidenced in previous threads.

One thing I am not, little girl, is a liar. How about you prove I'm one before throwing around heafty accusations? Why haven't you provided your own evidence that supports your argument? I think the evidence on who's the bullshitter speaks for itself so far, don't you?

You say little girl like it's an insult lol. Anywho, you notice all the artifacts/jaggies in this image, especially on objects near a light source?

http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559826890507280269/6CFD6B274DCFF0CFDF6E07F8585E90B57CAB47E3/

That's due to a lack of AF and AA sampling the images further.

I'm sorry but you just don't know what you're talking about. Just building your own rig doesn't suddenly mean that you know this stuff about gaming rigs. I can name a bunch of people that can build their rigs but know next to nothing about which part does what and what's the most important part. Or where their bottlenecks might be.

First of all, the amount of games that can actually even theoretically use more than 2 gigs of RAM is extremely small. Unless the thing is native 64bit you just simply can't do it. Even with games like crysis that include a 64bit exe, the game will run absolutely just as well on the 32bit one with no slowdowns or anything.

The only way you'll benefit from over 8GB of RAM in a normal game is that if the game is broken and has a bad memory leak, just like BF3 used to have.

SSDs are also hardly affect game performance. Basically the biggest advantage of SSDs are the random access speeds that will basically help your windows operations to a large degree. SSDs don't even have that much better sequential read/write speeds, which are the ones that games really take use of when you're loading something. For example you can match SSD read/writes with a RAID0 setup, depending on the HDDs and SSD of course but still. And even then, the read/writes are pretty much pointless for your average gamer since they really do not affect smoothness almost at all outside MMOs, and even then a fast normal HDD is more than enough. And I'd also think that the amount of people with their 500GB steam collections on SSDs is pretty much 0.

If you want a memory to be worried about when it comes to gaming you should take a look at your vram. For example you mentioned AA etc. earlier, normal RAM has next to nothing to do with that stuff, what you want for 1600p and 8xMSAA (or something similar) is lots of VRAM and excellent memory bandwidth (nice big memory bus on your card coupled with a good memory controller and fast GDDR5).

In the end can't think of a single mainstream game that would actually benefit from above 8GB of RAM. Sure if you want to run photoshop (or want to do heavy PS in general) you might want to go the extra mile for the increased capacity but for a strictly gaming machine, absolutely 100% not needed.

There's a reason I benchmark my machine with 8GB only. I can clock them much higher than I could if I had 4 sticks of the stuff in. Even though my setup technically supports quad channel memory, there's just no point for most stuff.

Just for good measure:

Spoiler: this is what I do when I'm not gaming

 

[Athinira]

"Might be the exception"? Half-Life 2 asks for a recommended RAM of 512MB. While Metro asks for 8GB of RAM for a smooth performance (as stated by the developers). How is that a "possible" exception to your statement that the RAM requirements aren't that different?

Well guess what: The reason I said Half-Life might be the exception was to emphasize that the REST of the games in the Toms Hardware Test would be more relevant to look at than Half-Life when comparing RAM-usage.

So why on earth you are focusing on Half-Life 2 in your reply again, leaving everything else relevant out?

Please respond to the points I made. This cat and mouse game of semantics isn't really productive.

Metro asks for four times the amount of RAM the rest of those games do for "optimal performance."

Just because the developers of the other games hasn't decided to speak up about wgat they consider the sweet spot for RAM for their games (beyond what is specified in the system requirements), doesn't mean the situation of these games aren't the same as Metro 2033.

Also, since you said Metro 2033 is a great example of a really RAM hungry game and 8 GB is apparently the sweet spot for optimal performance... what is the point of 12 and 16 gigs again? )

 

[Athinira]

Because what the developers think is good enough, isn't good enough for me. I've got Fallout: New Vegas using three times the RAM required, so it never drops below 60fps, runs on max and, thanks to .ini tweaking, modding and GPU level correction, has enhanced effects to be as pretty as can be. The same with Metro 2033; you can force higher anti-aliasing, field of view for improved graphics and tessellation and v-sync to correct 3D appearance and performance (running any game in 3D, especially Metro 2033, is a major system hog).

You have still failed to provide any evidence that computer RAM beyond 8 gigabytes is relevant to gaming.

Just because you think that 8 gigabytes isn't good enough for you, doesn't mean it is helping your game (no matter what your gut feeling is telling you), and it certainly shouldn't be used as a basis if someone comes asking you for advice on how to build his new gaming rig - unless you put in the disclaimer that more than 8 gigs is just your personal preference.

My personal sweetspot for a gaming rig would be 12 gigabytes (i run alot of background apps, and would like a little bit of extra RAM), but if someone asked me how many gigs I'd recommend, I'd still say 8 is good enough, and that he/she can always expand later if they want to.